« Operation Secret Squirrel | Main | The Check's In the Mail »

July 31, 2007


can she be impeached? otherwise cited by the Congress. She was contemptuous, but was she contempt-ible?

this should be no surprise to anyone... once again, here's what the bush administration announced PRIOR to last november's elections...

from time magazine...
"In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as 'a cataclysmic fight to the death' over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is 'going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation.'"
absolutely NOTHING that could possibly be construed as a crack in total, unfettered executive power is going to take place as long as bush and his criminal compadres are in office... anyone who believes otherwise has simply not been paying attention... and this is precisely why our current crisis is so grave...

congress still wants to believe that the mechanisms of government are working and is continuing to turn the crank... what they haven't fully grasped is that the white house has already declared, in multiple ways, that they will function SOLELY on the basis of their own judgment and will NOT be responsive to ANY guidance, direction or due process served up by ANYONE else, INCLUDING those elsewhere in the executive branch with whom they disagree... the danger is palpable... bush and his gang have made it clear that the only way they will be stopped is via removal, and that's assuming they don't pull something before that can happen... i know it's a degree of treachery that none of us really want to believe, and, i admit, even with all the signs pointing in the direction, it's not something most of us want to swallow... but, i'm convinced that removal is our only option and that it better happen soon...


because we don't have a legal system would be the short answer. because the one we have has been bribed to look the other way is another. because the mafia only shoot their own when they steal from themselves?

She has only done what the Executive Branch told her do. Following orders, her oath like Sara Taylors is to the antichrist not the constitution. It wasn't the best defense at Nuremburg but unless a court rules against you a good tactic. The unitary executive is in a time of war you know.

Why EW, is this another Captain Renault moment out of Casablanca?

BillE - It is also notable that at least many of the defendants at Nuremburg had the honor to admit what they had done in the name of the Reich; we have none of that with our glorious leader's crew.

Bmaz--no honor among thieves, as the saying goes.

The other factor with all these jobs is getting someone to be the replacement even if Bush wanted to fire her. They are at the point in the Admin where people are leaving while the getting is good and they can land something lucrative. No one wants to join a sinking ship. They are down to the 4th and 5th string in some agencies. Look at Homeland Security and DOJ. And with the political appointees, a new appointment just means a bruising Senate confirmation. Gonzales isn't the only one who is "irreplaceable."

OT - EW, what's your take on congressional testimony from Russ Tice?


Heh, I would bet that Rumsfeld is even still hanging around DOD. "Advisory Capacity" or some such drivel. John Bolton is on AE Institute payroll but he might as well be working for the WH, has his butt firmly planted in the UK running his mouth. You just can't get rid of these people, Katherine Harris kept showing up on the Hill even after she lost the election.


Any chance that failing to enforce the Hatch Act couldf be regarded as a High Crime? Or Misdemeanour?

Or a breach of the oath of office?

Clutching at straws here...


Tice's stories in the past are one of the reasons I've been arguing this is a part of the program, yes.


A President's refusal to fire a problem employee is explicitly something the Founders included among impeachable offenses.

But our current Congress appears not to agree.

Then we'll help you keep arguing this, EW.

A President's refusal to fire a problem employee is exlicitly something the Founders included among impeachable offenses.

Make us proud at YKOS, EW, I know you will.

Any chance that failing to enforce the Hatch Act couldf be regarded as a High Crime? Or Misdemeanour?

Or, by extension, a deliberate failure to enforce the Presidential Records Act? There is no stipulated penalty for violating it. But one presumes that the liable party for violations is the president.

A President's refusal to fire a problem employee is explicitly something the Founders included among impeachable offenses.

Hamilton, in Federalist 65:

Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?
Oh dear. Any word back from Specter yet?

But anyway, time to send Ellen Tauscher and others a marked up copy of the constitution, with the note that 'Impeachment Is There For A Reason'.

Aw PinNC, don't go quoting the Federalist Papers, Constitution and whatnot. That stuff is quaint; mere pieces of goddamn paper. We are in a war and the inherent unitary powers of the Commander in Chief Presidency, along with the AUMF, makes this all hunky-dory.

Vitter is also still hanging tough waiting for his little incident to blow over...which it probably will at this point...too many scandals.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad